tubeless MTB systems

monsterman said:

Does anyone have any views on Stans No tubes or other equivalent tubeless system (ie, inexpensive systems without having to change rims etc).

cheers.

I wouldn't exactly call them expensive. But yes, they do work as advertised as long as you understand the limitations:

* Will not work with all tires
* Cannot protect against certain types of puntures (cuts to the sidewall in particular
* Fixing a flat if it does occur can be difficult
* Is messy and can be difficult to inflate

They are the big ones, I'm sure there are others I can't think of right now. Personally I prefer using Maxxis flyweight tubes (~90 grams). I get similar weight savings without having to mess around with sealant, and I don't get punctures very often.

If you being frustrated by regular flats which stans would solve though, it might be the way to go.

monsterman said:

Does anyone have any views on Stans No tubes or other equivalent tubeless system (ie, inexpensive systems without having to change rims etc).

cheers.

24" tube cut on outside diameter. Stretch tube over your rim.
Mount tyre of your choice
Before installing tyre 100% mix a solution of 30ml liquid latex and 30ml water and put it in the tyre
Completely mount tyre
Using a compressor pump tyre up quickly to approx 60psi. Roll tyre around to get good coverage.
Put further air in as required until it stops bleeding.
Once sealed lower pressure to 30psi and enjoy.

I used this for DH for about 3 years. In the end I went back to tubes in the front tyre because I found the weight kept the bike on line better. I haven't put the effort in for XC riding and find it easy to carry a tube and pump.

There is of course the added benefit of reduced rolling resistance with a tubeless system due to the friction between the tyre and tube not occuring.

If you want more info pick my brain on the next LA ride or ride in the bush 😉

Wow, I never thought of tube/tyre friction slowing me down, no wonder I fade so much in the latter stages.

Tubeless tyres have their benefits, but I’ve gotten flats out on the trail & been on my way in 10-15mins with your garden-variety tube tyre set up.
My commuter runs tubeless rims but I have tubed tyres on it. I find the bead is a [censored] to break sometimes.

That’s all I have on a tubeless MTB set up.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Marx SS said:

Wow, I never thought of tube/tyre friction slowing me down

Well don't start thinking of it now, because it's a myth. "the tube of
an inflated tire is so firmly pressed against the casing that it, in
effect, becomes an internal tread". http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance.html

--
Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Marx SS said:

Wow, I never thought of tube/tyre friction slowing me down

Well don't start thinking of it now, because it's a myth. "the tube of
an inflated tire is so firmly pressed against the casing that it, in
effect, becomes an internal tread". sheldonbrown.comrolling resistance.htmlOpen ↗

--
Shane Stanley

And the very next sentence states
"The tread and the tube together absorb the majority of the energy lost in the rolling tire while the inter-cord binder (usually rubber) comes in far behind" http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance.html

A comparison of road tyres wrt pressures and cross sectional area does nothing to disprove the rolling resistance. The sentence from the same article above would suggest that the removal of the tube would result in a reduction in rolling resistance.

From a more informative article
"The cause of rolling resistance has at times been attributed to scrubbing between tread rubber and road, when in fact it arises almost entirely from flexing of rubber, or better yet, the elastomers in a tire. This includes the binder between casing cords, tread rubber, and inner tube rubber, all of which flex and absorb energy." sheldonbrown.comrolling resistance tubular.htmlOpen ↗

Before tubeless tyres were available for MTB, Latex tubes were used due to lower rolling resistence. Unfortunately there were reliability issues with a 100% latex tubes and they would lose pressure and tended to wear out, which gave them a race only type application.

Additional benifits also include the ability to run a tyre with less "grip" at lower pressures to gain more "grip" with a much lower risk of pinchflatting and an improvement due to a smoother rolling surface.

Personally I have seen the difference between no tube and a tube on the same track in the same afternoon where I could not hit the same max speed on a fast DH track (60km/h +) when I put a tube in after having broken the bead and not having latex on hand. This was dispite pedalling into the section where I previously had not.

Paulie-AU said:

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Marx SS said:

Wow, I never thought of tube/tyre friction slowing me down

Well don't start thinking of it now, because it's a myth. "the tube of
an inflated tire is so firmly pressed against the casing that it, in
effect, becomes an internal tread".
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance.html

--
Shane StanleyAnd the very next sentence states

"The tread and the tube together absorb the majority of the energy lost
in the rolling tire while the inter-cord binder (usually rubber) comes
in far behind"
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance.html

A comparison of road tyres wrt pressures and cross sectional area does
nothing to disprove the rolling resistance. The sentence from the same
article above would suggest that the removal of the tube would result
in a reduction in rolling resistance.

From a more informative article
"The cause of rolling resistance has at times been attributed to
scrubbing between tread rubber and road, when in fact it arises almost
entirely from flexing of rubber, or better yet, the elastomers in a
tire. This includes the binder between casing cords, tread rubber, and
inner tube rubber, all of which flex and absorb energy."
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance-tubular.html

Before tubeless tyres were available for MTB, Latex tubes were used due
to lower rolling resistence. Unfortunately there were reliability issues
with a 100% latex tubes and they would lose pressure and tended to wear
out, which gave them a race only type application.

Additional benifits also include the ability to run a tyre with less
"grip" at lower pressures to gain more "grip" with a much lower risk of
pinchflatting and an improvement due to a smoother rolling surface.

Personally I have seen the difference between no tube and a tube on the
same track in the same afternoon where I could not hit the same max
speed on a fast DH track (60km/h +) when I put a tube in after having
broken the bead and not having latex on hand. This was dispite
pedalling into the section where I previously had not.

I would be suprised if that could be pinned to rolling resistance
changes brought about by a tube, I'd expect that such a change would be
very very small. Your example is moot (but all too typical of what
counts for "proof" these days ... isolate your variables, grasshopper),
if you want to prove it, you'd need a properly constructed experiment -
a power meter and a spin trainer would probably provide sufficient
accuracy to see if tubes or no made any sort of measurable difference.

My limited exp of MTB in an XC context is that I have found that the terrain contributes to about 99.9% of the rolling restitance over an averaged distance that I have personally experienced.
Although I haven’t competed in Downhill ……. That’s a different kettle of sardines…

In article <[email hidden]>,

Paulie-AU said:

And the very next sentence states
"The tread and the tube together absorb the majority of the energy lost
in the rolling tire while the inter-cord binder (usually rubber) comes
in far behind"
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance.html

A comparison of road tyres wrt pressures and cross sectional area does
nothing to disprove the rolling resistance. The sentence from the same
article above would suggest that the removal of the tube would result
in a reduction in rolling resistance.

Indeed it would. I'm not disputing your conclusion, just the suggestion
that it's due to friction between tube and tyre.

--
Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Paulie-AU said:

And the very next sentence states
"The tread and the tube together absorb the majority of the energy lost
in the rolling tire while the inter-cord binder (usually rubber) comes
in far behind"
sheldonbrown.comrolling resistance.htmlOpen ↗

A comparison of road tyres wrt pressures and cross sectional area does
nothing to disprove the rolling resistance. The sentence from the same
article above would suggest that the removal of the tube would result
in a reduction in rolling resistance.

Indeed it would. I'm not disputing your conclusion, just the suggestion
that it's due to friction between tube and tyre.

--
Shane Stanley

Ok so not friction, but the resistance of the tube rubber to deformation etc.

Overall the performance increase was possibly due to a number of factors such as the reduction of unsprung weight resulting in better suspension response, reduction in spinning inertia resulting in better change of direction and possibly reduced rolling resistance.

The DH tube and tyre combination could possibly magnify benefits that may be seen in a XC situation given the thickness of the rubber in a DH tube and the relativly low (25psi) pressures that were being run in the tyres.

While it cannot be concluded that rolling resistance was the major cause, the timing and max speeds recorded showed that there was a difference over the same track in the same day. This is as close as someone in the real world who isn't an importer or manufacturer is going to get to real world testing without the fabrication of testing machines.

Another thing noted is that on roll out from a run while running tubeless my bike would continue to roll further than others (I know variables but same model tyres, hubs and rim weights almost identical) even after following at their pace.

Oh well they were my observations over a few years of use in both racing and training applications based on my do it at home tubeless system.

Cheers
Paul

Paulie-AU said:

This is as close as someone in the real world who isn't an importer or manufacturer is going to get to real world testing without the fabrication of testing machines.

Paulie, you really should get the necessary equipment. You can't possibly argue something from personal experience - it needs to be tried and tested using professional equipment.

I also need proper machinery to test whether eating lots of sultanas in the lead-up to the 24 hour race will indeed make Tamyka go faster. I believe that the added back pressure I gain from excessive consumption of dried food does in fact increase my average speed.

Alternatively, I could slam my head against a brick wall repeatedly, as this is nerd-world and no matter what your personal experience says - it needs to be tested using professional equipment.

Lotte (slamming head against brick wall)

In article <[email hidden]>,

LotteBum said:

this is nerd-world and no matter what your personal experience says - it
needs to be tested using professional equipment

Put down the gun. Gently. Personal observations are one thing; it's when
you come up with a theory to explain them that you need to be more
circumspect.

--
Shane Stanley

Paulie-AU wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Personally I have seen the difference between no tube and a tube on the
same track in the same afternoon where I could not hit the same max
speed on a fast DH track (60km/h +) when I put a tube in after having
broken the bead and not having latex on hand. This was dispite
pedalling into the section where I previously had not.

Note to self: keep latex on hand.

;-)

Tam

LotteBum said:

Paulie-AU said:

This is as close as someone in the real world who isn't an importer or
manufacturer is going to get to real world testing without the
fabrication of testing machines.Paulie, you really should get the necessary equipment. You can't

possibly argue something from personal experience - it needs to be
tried and tested using professional equipment.

I also need proper machinery to test whether eating lots of sultanas in
the lead-up to the 24 hour race will indeed make Tamyka go faster. I
believe that the added back pressure I gain from excessive consumption
of dried food does in fact increase my average speed.

Alternatively, I could slam my head against a brick wall repeatedly, as
this is nerd-world and no matter what your personal experience says - it
needs to be tested using professional equipment.

Lotte (slamming head against brick wall)

--
LotteBum

Hey, you gonna make me go faster?! Did I tell you I bought new tyres?!

Tam

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:58:46 +1000

Tamyka Bell said:

Note to self: keep latex on hand.

Because you don't even have a piano?

Zebee

Shane Stanley said:

Put down the gun. Gently. Personal observations are one thing; it's when you come up with a theory to explain them that you need to be more circumspect.

Right, so my old tyres (Maxxis Larsens) were faster than my current tyres. That's experience. Are you saying that I shouldn't recommend them to anyone unless I've got accurate data? That's the impression I get.

Lotte

LotteBum said:

Shane Stanley said:

Put down the gun. Gently. Personal observations are one thing; it's when
you come up with a theory to explain them that you need to be more
circumspect.

Right, so my old tyres (Maxxis Larsens) were faster than my current
tyres. That's experience. Are you saying that I shouldn't recommend
them to anyone unless I've got accurate data? That's the impression I
get.

You shouldn't claim that they're faster because of one factor in the
use of the tyre unless you can show some good evidence to support it.
The debate's about rolling resistance reduced by the removal of a tube
- not about running different tyre pressures etc (which running
tubeless may make less risky, but that's a different argument!)

Bleve said:

You shouldn't claim that they're faster because of one factor in the use of the tyre unless you can show some good evidence to support it.

Far out. Technobum!

Lotte

In article <[email hidden]>,

LotteBum said:

Right, so my old tyres (Maxxis Larsens) were faster than my current
tyres. That's experience. Are you saying that I shouldn't recommend
them to anyone unless I've got accurate data?

No, not at all. But if you have a theory as to *why*, you need to have
some good evidence for it before you express it as bald fact.

--
Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley said:

No, not at all. But if you have a theory as to *why*, you need to have
some good evidence for it before you express it as bald fact.
--
Shane Stanley

Don't bring my baldness into this :eek: